Protesters blockade at Stansted airport

Voyager2002

sturll wrote: »

I watched a programme some time back and it was called the Global Warming Myth - on Discovery or something and on it were several of the worlds most experianced boffins in regards to Global Warming. Not only that but i read National Geographic and New Scientist on a partially regular basis and the general feeling is that about half of scientists agree it does exist and hafl don't.

Both have extremely strong arguments for and against and both generally agree that pollution and C02 is bad for the planet. The dissagreement begins when they talk of it having a direct effect on the warming element and the weather etc. Lets not forget a few million years back we had an ice age, there have been recorded freak weather since records began and that was way before cars were on the roads.

I mean, forgive my ignorance but i remember being a child at school and watching the rain forests be chopped down and being told because of that there was an ozone layer and that in 10 years there would be no trees on earth. Well, there are still plenty of trees... Not only that but my neighbour is (i think) 72 and he claims that he has noticed no major changes in the weather and that if anything things have improved from the smock ridden days of the 60's.

So no - ill side with the half that think its nothing more than a theory made bigger than it actually is so the governments can tax us accordingly and convince us that paying a few extra quid on flights is helping the environment.

I think you seriously misunderstand the scientific material you read. While there is considerable debate about the details, there is a remarkable consensus among reputable members of the scientific community about the nature and scale of the problem, and the magnitude of the changes that are needed in response.

mikeandrach_2

round up all the protesters and drown them, shoot them or both, would be disgusted to know one of them

boombap

Amoungst the many who had their flights cancelled by the protesters yesterday was a lady who was travelling to Ireland to attend her father's funeral. She was unable to re-arrange a flight in time so missed the whole day.

I hope the protesters are made aware of this.

S.

mrposhman

these people are morons. They live with an ideology that will never occur. They effectively say "we are right, ignore any other demands and agree to ours".

What does that sound like?? Terrorism to me.

The thing that they don't realise is that by making these stupid moves they actually work against themselves. Their main ally should be the public but by alienating them by ruining plans they alienate themselves and reduce any lpublic sympathy and support that they may generate.

They say they want to reduce short haul flights?? Well how about lobbying the government to provide a cheaper, cleaner way of doing it..........................................................or is that too obvious???

Whats more, I'll have a bet with anyone that these are also the people that state no to nucleur. If we don't have nucleur power we have to have gas or oil, to which they say "no we don't like them either".

They have an ideology which I would grade alongside Al-Qaida and the IRA in terms of do-ability (is that a word??)

ITS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

They need to get themselves some credibility and get themselves into positions where they can look at ALL SIDES of an argument as for example London will require more flights to satisfy business and pleasure demand. This is a fact and something will be done, whether that is increasing the sizes of Gatwick / Heathrow / Stansted I don't know or whether that is the potential Thames Gateway airport I don't know but they need to accept that others have requirements too.

TimothyEBaldwin

mrposhman wrote: »

They say they want to reduce short haul flights?? Well how about lobbying the government to provide a cheaper, cleaner way of doing it..........................................................or is that too obvious???

People are doing so, and getting less media attention. Also in many cases cheaper greener options exist - but aren't exclusively used.

Also such an approach risks the green transport being additional to the flights, rather than a replacement.

Also less disruptive tactics have been tried and failed, and there are only a few year left.

mrposhman wrote: »

Whats more, I'll have a bet with anyone that these are also the people that state no to nucleur. If we don't have nucleur power we have to have gas or oil, to which they say "no we don't like them either".

Nuclear power is not viable in the short term because it takes several years to build nuclear power stations.

Depletion of uranium ore is a major problem, increasing amounts of energy are required to extract the uranium and is quickly appaching the point where more energy is required to extract uranium than can be obtained from it!

If the use of fossil fuels in mining were replaced with batteries or hydrogen (produced by electrolysis) that point may already have been reached.

There is however plenty of sunlight (if used efficiently), on average 200 watts per square metre.

sturll

TimothyEBaldwin wrote: »

People are doing so, and getting less media attention. Also in many cases cheaper greener options exist - but aren't exclusively used.

Also such an approach risks the green transport being additional to the flights, rather than a replacement.

Also less disruptive tactics have been tried and failed, and there are only a few year left.



Nuclear power is not viable in the short term because it takes several years to build nuclear power stations.

Depletion of uranium ore is a major problem, increasing amounts of energy are required to extract the uranium and is quickly appaching the point where more energy is required to extract uranium than can be obtained from it!

If the use of fossil fuels in mining were replaced with batteries or hydrogen (produced by electrolysis) that point may already have been reached.

There is however plenty of sunlight (if used efficiently), on average 200 watts per square metre.

Anyone who has been to the USA or Northern Africa, or China or India - infact probably most of the world will realise that stopping a few planes taking off will have an effect so miniscule it is pointless.

mrposhman

TimothyEBaldwin wrote: »

People are doing so, and getting less media attention. Also in many cases cheaper greener options exist - but aren't exclusively used.

Also such an approach risks the green transport being additional to the flights, rather than a replacement.

Also less disruptive tactics have been tried and failed, and there are only a few year left.



Nuclear power is not viable in the short term because it takes several years to build nuclear power stations.

Depletion of uranium ore is a major problem, increasing amounts of energy are required to extract the uranium and is quickly appaching the point where more energy is required to extract uranium than can be obtained from it!

If the use of fossil fuels in mining were replaced with batteries or hydrogen (produced by electrolysis) that point may already have been reached.

There is however plenty of sunlight (if used efficiently), on average 200 watts per square metre.

Where did I say nucleur in the short term?

Its part of a long term solution that should include EFW, tidal and some hydro.

I've seen plenty on solar that suggests that is not really a viable alternative and will never produce the levels that you expect. For example, there was a massive solar plant in Germany (the name escapes me right now) and despite the vast area will not power anywhere near enough what it should.

A protest like this one only serves to shoot your own campaigns in the foot and turns the general public against the ideology of this.

Where are the campaigns for cheaper alternatives? Where are the feasible solutions to bringing these in as I have seen nothing. If these have sound foundations behind them there are ALWAYS ways of gaining publicity without resorting to disrupting travel plans.

Do you support the fact that the lady a poster aluded to above missed her fathers funeral? Do you support the fact that another guy who was travelling home to see his very ill father who was going in for a difficult lifesaving operation and may or may not survive? What do you say to these people and how does this get their public backing?

All those arrested should be charged under the terrorism act

mrposhman

TimothyEBaldwin wrote: »

People are doing so, and getting less media attention. Also in many cases cheaper greener options exist - but aren't exclusively used.

Also such an approach risks the green transport being additional to the flights, rather than a replacement.

Also less disruptive tactics have been tried and failed, and there are only a few year left.

I find this hard to believe. If these greener options are cheaper please tell me why businesses don't use them. I come from a business background and find it hard to believe that companies that can see cost savings not attempting to achieve these. My guess is that they may be slightly cheaper to run but have an enormous capital cost up front which actually reduces the NPV of any project to below that of current technology.

Also, my point about cheaper alternatives are such that if trains etc were significantly cheaper than flights (enough to offset the time differential with travelling) you still think a majority would take the more expensive quicker version. If you believe this then you don't understand the easyjet / ryanair business model and why its been so successful.

Also, please give a quote where we only have a few years left as I think you use that for your own objectives rather than having specific scientific proof of this.

Voyager2002

mrposhman wrote: »

I find this hard to believe. If these greener options are cheaper please tell me why businesses don't use them. I come from a business background and find it hard to believe that companies that can see cost savings not attempting to achieve these. My guess is that they may be slightly cheaper to run but have an enormous capital cost up front which actually reduces the NPV of any project to below that of current technology.

Also, my point about cheaper alternatives are such that if trains etc were significantly cheaper than flights (enough to offset the time differential with travelling) you still think a majority would take the more expensive quicker version. If you believe this then you don't understand the easyjet / ryanair business model and why its been so successful.

Also, please give a quote where we only have a few years left as I think you use that for your own objectives rather than having specific scientific proof of this.

Sticking with short-haul transport: the office-to-office time for a visit to most European cities is actually less by train (Eurostar) than with most flights. In addition, times spent travelling by rail can be used productively, while time spent getting to and from airports and queuing for security is lost for work. And the energy/environmental cost of a journey to Europe by rail is lower than for flying.

The problem is that while it takes a minute or so to buy a flight to virtually anywhere in Europe, it takes a couple of hours to organise and buy a rail ticket to (say) Cologne. And the cheaper tickets are difficult to find: French railways recently removed the English-language version of their website that offers low fares for travel at fixed times (the airline business model) so these fares are only available to people who know how to look and are confident in using a foreign language. Similarly, I found a low fare offered by the Dutch rail website in in its Dutch and German versions, but in English the same journey cost far more.

There is clearly a need for lobbying efforts to re-establish what used to be called British Rail International -- a public-sector office to retail competitively-priced rail tickets to the English-speaking market.

As for the point that "we only have a few years left", see the reports in the Guardian yesterday, discussing the results presented at the conference organised by the Met. Office over the summer. Sadly, rather than having "a few years left" it seems that we have already past the point of no return. Our choice now will determine whether we face very serious problems, or absolute catastrophe.

withabix

Voyager2002 wrote: »

Sticking with short-haul transport: the office-to-office time for a visit to most European cities is actually less by train (Eurostar) than with most flights.

If you care to check, you will find that most of the population and businesses in Britain are NOT IN LONDON.

Therefore, Eurostar is NOT quicker at all.

From my city, via English West Coast Mainline (Pendolino) and Euorstar to Paris, for example, is 8h45 minutes each way and costs £400 return. Standard Class. Add 30 minutes travel at each end, plus 'check-in' time and your up at over 10 hours door-to-door.

From my nearest airport to Paris costs approx £200 return with Air France and takes around 1h45 each way. Add 1 hour travel at each end plus 1 hour check-in and you're looking at under 5 hours door-to-door.

Hmmmm....difficult choice:rolleyes:

I can fly to Bristol in less than 1 hour each way from my local airport for £99 return. By train that takes 5 hours each way and costs £140-£170 return.